Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the Community Affairs Committee (2020) of Kwai Tsing District Council
Date： 6 May 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. Venue: K&T DO Conference Room
Attendee Time of Arrival Time of Departure Mr NG Kim-sing (Chairman) Start of Meeting End of Meeting Miss WONG Pit-man (Vice-chairman) Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman 10:23 a.m. End of Meeting Mr HON Chun-yin Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr HUI Kei-cheung 11:39 a.m. End of Meeting Ms KWOK Fu-yung Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr LAM Siu-fai Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr LAU Chi-kit Start of Meeting End of Meeting Ms LAU Kwai-mui Start of Meeting End of Meeting Miss LEUNG Ching-shan Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr LEUNG Chi-shing 10:18 a.m. 1:20 p.m. Ms LEUNG Kar-ming Start of Meeting 1:16 p.m. Mr LEUNG Kam-wai Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr LEUNG Kwok-wah Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen 10:11 a.m. End of Meeting The Hon. LEUNG Yiu-chung 10:04 a.m. 11:12 a.m. Miss LO Yuen-ting Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr SIN Ho-fai Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr TONG Ho-man Start of Meeting End of Meeting Mr TSUI Hiu-kit 10:53 a.m. End of Meeting Mr WONG Bing-kuen 10:24 a.m. End of Meeting Mr WONG Chun-tat 10:06 a.m. End of Meeting Mr WONG Yun-tat, Ivan start of Meeting End of Meeting
In Attendance Mr CHEUNG Kam-hing, Billy Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional West) 4, Environmental Protection Department Mrs. KWOK WONG Mun-yi Senor School Development Officer (Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi) 3, Education Bureau Ms LUI Ka-wing Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Tsuen Wan/ Kwai Tsing District) 3, Social Welfare Department Ms MAK Markie Senior Community Relations Officer, Independent Commission Against Corruption Ms MAK Siu-ling, Iris Senior Property Service Manager/Kwai Chung, Housing Department Mr TSANG Kin-hang, Gary Labour Officer (Workplace Consultation Promotion), Labour Department Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy Chief Health Inspector (Kwai Tsing) 1, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr. YIM Wai-hung, Vincent Administrative Assistant/ Lands (District Lands Office, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing), Lands Department Mr. LI Hok-lai, Matthew Engineer/Special Duties 1, Transport Department Ms CHAN Suet-shan, Amy Chief Land Executive /Task Force 2, Special Duties Task Force, Lands Department Mr SZETO Man Senior Land Executive /Task Force 8, Special Duties Task Force, Lands Department Mr. YEUNG Kim-ming Manager/ Squatter Control (Kowloon, Tsuen Wan & Kwai Tsing Office), Lands Department Ms MAR Suk-fong District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kwai Tsing), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms CHAN Suk-fun Health Inspector (Pest Control) Kwai Tsing, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr LEE Wai-kay, Eric Senior Building Surveyor/ D4, Building Department Mr CHAU William Building Surveyor/ D4-4, Building Department Ms TAM Man-ting, Alice Assistant Environmental Protection Officer (Regional West) 42, Environmental Protection Department
Miss YIM Yik-huen, Bonnie Assistant District Officer, Kwai Tsing District Office Miss HO Yin-king, Susanne Senior Liaison Officer (1), Kwai Tsing District Office Mr CHAU Ka-nin, Eric Senior Liaison Officer (3), Kwai Tsing District Office Miss TSE Lai-yan, Winnie (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council) 3, Kwai Tsing District Office
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed Members to the second meeting of the Community Affairs Committee (CAC) (2020) of the Kwai Tsing District Council (K&T DC).
Confirmation of Minutes of the First Meeting (2020) held on 11 February 2020
2. Mr LAM Siu-fai moved a motion to confirm the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr HON Chun-yin. The Committee endorsed the minutes unanimously.
Motion: The Two Illegal Barbecue Sites in Kau Wa Keng Have Caused Enormous Nuisance to the Residents in the Neighbourhood Over the Years, Giving Rise to Problems such as Air Pollution, Noise Pollution, Light Pollution, Huge Amount of Illegal Parking. Kwai Tsing District Council Urges the Government to Set Up an Inter-Departmental Team to Take Strong Actions Against the Barbecue Sites to Stop them Causing Further Nuisance to the Residents, and to Report the Progress to the Committee Regularly. (Proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve and Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren, seconded by Mr WONG Tin-yan and Mr SIN Chung-kai) (CAC Paper No. 27, 27a/D/2020)
3. Mr. CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve introduced the Paper and put forth enquiries regarding the CAC Paper No. 27a/D/2020 as follows:
(i) The District Lands Office, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing (DLO) replied that the position of the manager had been left vacant since 2005 and there was still no appointment to fill that vacancy for fifteen years. Also, the manager would incur legal responsibility and therefore not many people would be willing to take up that job. DLO should consider adopting other means to handle the breach of lease conditions.
(ii) The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) indicated that there had been a total of 16 prosecutions as at that moment. There were not any deterrent effects despite of continuous fines. The BBQ Grounds (BBQ Grounds) were still in operation. FEHD should step up the law enforcement efforts and suggest more effective measures like imprisonment.
(iii) The residents of Kau Wa Keng Village, nearby Princess Margaret Hospital, Cho Yiu Chuen and Mei Foo Sun Chuen lodged complaints against the odour from the BBQ Grounds. Hence, he did not agree with the comments of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) Regional Office (West) that the odour was only intermittent, slight and would be dispersed in the air. He also queried their way of odour measurement.
(iv) The nuisance of the BBQ Grounds to the residents of Kau Wa Keng had been lasted for 17 years. He requested a report listing all efforts taken by various Government departments over the years.
4. Mr YIM Wai-hung, Vincent, Administrative Assistant/Lands (District Lands Office, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing), Lands Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The lease was the private contract between the Government and the land owners. The landowners are required to ensure that the uses of land are in compliance with the lease conditions. A land lease is a private contract and is enforced by DLO in its capacity as the landlord and a party to the contract involving no prosecutions. The two Kau Wa Keng BBQ Grounds concerned were the private agricultural land held under Block Government Leases and erected on remaining section of Lot No. 1349 in DD No. 4. As there were no restrictions on the land use for this type of private land lot, there was no breach with the terms and conditions of the lease by operating BBQ Grounds there.
(ii) However, a prior approval from the DLO was required if one needed to erect structures in the aforesaid land lot. As there were unauthorized structures erected in the aforesaid land lot, Lease enforcement actions have been carried out including by issuing warning letters to the landowners. registration of a warning letter at the Land Registry or re-entry upon the land. The warning letter will be registered at the Land Registry, commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance".
(iii) After that, DLO also enhanced enforcement. A statutory notice was issued under the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, requiring
that the unauthorised structures be demolished within a specified time. Although the owner could rectify the breach by the deadline, it was noticed that marquees was set up again recently. A statutory notice was issued again in early May this year. DLO would closely monitor the situation, take appropriate action and collaborate with other Government departments if necessary.
(iv) As regards the application for the appointment of the manager, the Kwai Tsing District Office (K&TDO) had already received two applications which were still under progress.
5. Mr LI Hok-lai, Matthew, Engineer/Special Duties 1, Transport Department (TD), gave responses as follows:
(i) On enforcement against illegal parking, it would be more appropriate to handle by law enforcement authorities.
(ii) Regarding the parking space in the neighbourhood, TD had inspected the situation recently and found that there was still spare capacity in the carpark of Wah Lai Estate. Hence, the issue of illegal parking was not related to the supply of carparks in the neighbourhood.
6. Miss HO Yin-king, Susanne, Senior Liaison Officer (1), K&TDO, gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) K&TDO had received applications for the manager of the Tsang Wa Hon Tso (the Tso). Objections were received after putting up the notice.
(ii) K&TDO requested all the applicants for the position of manager had to submit a complete stakeholder list of the Tso and gained the support from the majority of the stakeholders before processing the applications. K&TDO had to protect the interests of all the stakeholders processing the application for the manager. In other words, any objections had to be resolved.
(iii) K&TDO had met the applicants between January to March 2020. In order to process the application and deal with the objections, applicants were required and requested to submit more information.
7. Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy, Chief Health Inspector (Kwai Tsing) 1, FEHD, highlighted that the FEHD concerned about the operation of unlicensed restaurants and always step up inspections and took enforcement action. In the past twelve months, there was a total of 43 enforcement actions including 16 prosecutions. FEHD would continue to monitor the unlawful acts of the BBQ Grounds and took appropriate actions accordingly.
8. Mr CHEUNG Kam-hing, Billy, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional W) 4, EPD, gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) EPD carried out enforcement actions by virtue of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance and conducted site inspections regularly. During the peak hours of Friday nights in January and March, an odour assessment were carried out in the area surrounding the BBQ Grounds including the Kau Wa Keng New Village, Lai Yan Court, Happy Villa and Chung Shan Terrace. Only slight and intermittent odour emitting from the BBQ Grounds was observed. As the BBQ Grounds were situated outdoors with air ventilation, the slight and intermittent odour was reasonable. EPD could not take any further enforcement action by virtue of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
(Post-meeting note: EPD supplemented that the odour assessment carried out at the aforesaid sites was only for reference. Pursuant to the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, the sites for carrying out odor assessment should be in domestic premises, and normally in the residences of those who lodged the complaints.)
(ii) EPD would continue to monitor the situation closely and take enforcement action against any breaches.
9. Mr LAM Siu-fai put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He was not satisfied with the reply of EPD. Apart from the odour problem, the light pollution and noise pollution also caused immense nuisance to the residents in the neighbourhood.
(ii) He recalled his memories that there were incidents of food poisoning in
the BBQ Grounds. He enquired if the BBQ Grounds had a valid licence to sell food and also a valid places of public entertainment licence to sell alcoholic beverages and to play music. In addition, whether the police had conduct inspections to ensure that there were no illegal acts like drugs abuse in the BBQ Grounds.
10. Mr LAU Chi-kit put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He disagreed that the odour was light and intermittent.
(ii) Whether the BBQ Grounds were operating without a licence, and on what basis or provisions were the past prosecution and penalties made. In addition, he said that a lenient cash penalty would not have any deterrent effect and hence should increase the penalty such that the BBQ Grounds would be unable to operate. If there was insufficient deterrent effect with the existing provisions, whether the departments could follow up by other means.
11. The Hon. LEUNG Yiu-chung put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) From the reply of the DLO, as the Kau Wa Keng BBQ Grounds were the private lands, there were no restrictions in the use of land for such type of lease. However, as the land was an agricultural land and it was not used as such purpose, he enquired why it was not possible to make prosecution and whether it could be used for residential purposes.
(ii) The root cause of the problem was related to the title. Other problems handled by other departments were peripheral.
12. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The existing actions undertaken by the departments, including the issuance of warning letters and posting of notices, were ineffective. BBQ Grounds could easily pull down the unauthorized structures and build them up again later. Hence, he requested the departments to take more effective measures to cope with the situation.
(ii) He urged the K&TDO to speed up the efficiency of handling the
application for the manager. If there was no new name list submitted by the applicants, K&TDO should base on the name list submitted in the first application to consult stakeholders related to the objections. In addition, he wondered if the K&TDO could solve the problem of the BBQ Ground without involving the manager.
(iii) The residents in the neighbourhood next to the BBQ Grounds reflected that the furniture at home had a smell of barbecue. In addition, there were also problems of air pollution, light pollution and noise pollution. For instance, the happy birthday songs were played in the midnight. Hence, he queried the time that EPD made the measurement.
(iv) He hoped that all the Government departments would look the problems in the face and handle them properly by an inter-departmental group organized by K&TDO.
13. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The past and current District Council Members of the relevant constituencies had expressed a huge concern over the nuisance caused by the operation of the BBQ Grounds.
(ii) The land lot was originally designated for the agricultural purposes. He queried whether an application for the change of land use in BBQ Grounds was required and would be approved.
(iii) As the BBQ Grounds had erected the unauthorised structures repeatedly, he enquired why the Government did not re-enter the site under the Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies) Ordinance.
(iv) He hoped that the K&TDO could form an inter-departmental group to tackle the issues of the Kau Wa Keng BBQ Grounds.
14. Mr CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The Government departments conducted the inspections during non-operating hours of the BBQ Grounds and therefore it was impossible to do any prosecution with the breaches.
(ii) Whether the BBQ Ground had a valid licence to sell frozen food.
(iii) There were nuisances with the air and noise pollution caused by the BBQ Grounds to the residents in the neighbourhood. Hence he requested the Government to look the problems in the face and form an inter-departmental group to handle the case.
15. Miss YIM Yik-huen, Bonnie, Assistant District Officer, K&T DO, gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) K&TDO had always been hosting meetings with various Government departments regularly regarding the BBQ Grounds. For instance, we had explored the ways to speed up the application procedures for the manager with DLO, to handle the complaints and to explore the feasibility of increasing the frequencies of inspections with EPD and FEHD. In addition, K&TDO would pay special attention to licence applications for shop use around the Kau Wa Keng, and would remind the departments the important note when giving approvals to the applications. Hence, all the Government departments were paying a close attention to the issue and endeavoured to resolve the issue.
(ii) In the District Management Committee chaired by District Officer (Kwai Tsing) (DO), there were continuous discussions and follow-ups on the issue with the BBQ Grounds in the past years. The Members of the District Management Committee included representatives from the various Government departments, regional representatives, chairman and vice-chairman of the District Council and chairmen of the committees. DO would follow up with the unauthorized structures and the breaches of the BBQ Grounds. We would always keep a close contact with the Government departments regarding the complaints frequently received.
(iii) Members could always make suggestions. K&TDO and the various Government departments would make timely responses.
16. Miss HO Yin-king, Susanne gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) When dealing with the appointment of the manager of the Tso, K&TDO
had to ensure that the interests of the stakeholders were protected and hence there was the need to prove that the relevant appointment was supported by most of the stakeholders. The applicants were requested to submit a complete stakeholder list to continue with the applications.
(ii) In 2014, K&TDO received negative feedback after posting of notice. Another application for the appointment of the manager was received in 2018. As the applicant was unable to provide a complete stakeholder list, hence K&TDO could not ascertain whether the relevant applications for the position of the manager received the support from the majority of the stakeholders.
17. Mr YIM Wai-hung, Vincent gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) Regarding the issue of lease, different types of private land would have different terms and conditions. Some leases would have restrictions in the use of the land, like for industrial or residential purposes. The land lot of the BBQ Grounds was in the remaining section of Lot No. 1349 in D.D. No. 4 and it was the private agricultural land under the terms of a Block Lease. There were no restrictions in the use of land for this type of lease and the aforesaid agricultural land use was just a description of the state of land when the lease was contracted and did not compose a restriction in the use of land. As those leases were contracted at the time of the 1900s, DLO could not restrict the owner in the use of the land on the basis of such terms and conditions of the lease. Hence, operating the BBQ Grounds did not breach the terms and conditions of the lease and they need not to apply to the DLO for approval.
(ii) If the title owner used the aforesaid land lot for residential purpose but not erecting any structures, there would be no breach of the terms of the lease. However, the title owner still needed to comply with the other legislations and regulations.
(iii) The objective of the enforcement actions by DLO was to ensure that the title owner of the land would comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. If the title owner persistently ignored and refused to rectify the situation that gave rise to the breach, DLO could consider
deploying Cap. 126 Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies) for re-entry of the land lot. However, if the breach was rectified, there was no ground for the DLO to continue with the re-entry. Once DLO had posted a notice regarding the rectification of the newly erected unauthorised structure beside the BBQ Grounds, the breach was always rectified before the deadline. However, marquees were set up again soon afterwards.
(iv) The relevant land lot was owned by the Tso. The Tso had divided the land lot into multiple sub-sections and had also assigned most of them to others. The assignment of the sub-sections did not comply with the provisions of the New Territories Ordinance with the prior approval from K&TDO. In addition, the three managers of the Tso passed away one after another and there was no manager left to deal with any issues regarding the land. Under these circumstances, re-entry of the relevant land lot would involve complicated issues of title and law. In addition, apart from the BBQ Grounds, there were also tens of squatters in the land lot concerned and hence the re-entry of land would affect hundreds of residents in the squatters. The Government would need to handle the situation prudently and pragmatically.
(v) DLO would closely monitor the situation and would take necessary actions regarding to the actual situation and the availability of manpower.
18. Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) If FEHD had collected sufficient evidence in the course of the enforcement action, prosecution would be instituted to the relevant parties in accordance with the Food Business Regulation. In 2019, of all the convicted cases, the highest and average penalty amounted to $50,000 and about $15,000 respectively. Compared with 2017, the highest and average penalty was $35,000 and about $8,000 respectively. The court had already increased the penalty amount regarding the unauthorized operation of the BBQ Grounds.
(ii) FEHD would continue to carry out enforcement action against people operating unauthorised food business actively.
19. Mr CHEUNG Kam-hing, Billy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) In the course of enforcing the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, EPD had to follow Section No. 10 ‘Air Pollution Abatement Notice’ to assess the location of the emission source and the locality of the place affected, including the strength of the emissions, the duration, the frequency of the emission, whether it was an objectionable odour, and whether the emission would lead to the irritation of the eye, nose or skin or any other sensory discomfort. All of these relevant factors needed to be considered before deciding whether there would be breaches.
(ii) EPD needed to follow the Noise Control Ordinance in its enforcement by getting inside the domestic places to carry out the assessment. However, as most people were unwilling to open up their domestic places, EPD decided to choose the corridor on the 7th floor of the Lai Lam House in the Lai Yan Court for the assessment of the noise level as a reference, but did not notice any breach as such.
(iii) Regarding other noises, like those from the loud-speakers or from entertainment, EPD would carry out the assessment on a reasonable basis, like in end of 2018, an assessment of half an hour was performed and discovered that most of the noises came from the passers-by of the housing estate and there were only several instances of laughter and shrills coming from the BBQ Grounds which lasted only a few seconds or less than half a minute. Regarding the noises coming from outside of the BBQ Grounds, that would fall under the police for enforcement action.
(Post-meeting note: EPD supplemented that the noise assessment was made in the domestic premises of the complainant, starting from 11:00 pm until 12:30 midnight.)
(iv) There was no legislation controlling light pollution at that moment. After EPD received complaints, they would reflect the concerns of the complainant made, and persuaded the two BBQ Grounds repeatedly to make the necessary abatement measures, including switching off all the
unnecessary lights as early as possible or before 11:00pm. The BBQ Grounds concerned also accepted such persuasion and endeavoured to abate all the nuisances created to the public.
20. Mr LAM Siu-fai put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) It had been difficult to enforce the environmental protection regulations over the years. He enquired whether FEHD would tacitly agree to let the BBQ Grounds to continue its operation if the BBQ Grounds accepted the persuasion and made efforts to abate all the nuisances to the public.
(ii) Whether the operation of the BBQ Grounds was an infringement of the Fire Services Ordinance.
(iii) He agreed with the setting up of an inter-departmental team to focus on the nuisances created to the residents in the neighbourhood near the BBQ Grounds.
21. Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) FEHD should institute the prosecutions during the weekends.
(ii) He agreed with the setting up of the inter-departmental team.
22. Mr LAU Chi-kit put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) Whether FEHD carried out its enforcement pursuant to the Food Business Regulation Cap. 132X, with the maximum of $50,000 for penalty and imprisonment of six months. Although the court had already convicted the BBQ Grounds with the maximum penalty of $50,000, the BBQ Grounds still continued to operate. It was obvious that there was no deterrence with the penalty.
(ii) Whether FEHD would confiscate the food as court evidence after the prosecutions. He opined that FEHD should stop the supply of food and beverages of the BBQ Grounds which was the only way to stop its operation.
23. The Hon. LEUNG Yiu-chung put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) The reply from DLO indicated that the operation of the BBQ Grounds was a historical issue, originating from the making of the lease contract with no restrictions on the use of land resulting in the existing predicament in its management.
(ii) Owing to the existing shortage of houses and the size of the squatter areas beside the BBQ Grounds, the Government could consider the re-entry of the land lot with new planning, thus reducing complaints by resolving the issue thoroughly, and also reasonably re-settling the squatters on the other. He suggested DLO could consider this issue from a regional planning perspective.
24. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) As the stakeholders would continue to prosper and increase in numbers, which would be difficult to obtain the most accurate name list. He enquired if DLO could obtain such kind of name list from other channels.
(ii) The prosecution and penalty of FEHD did not have any deterrence and he suggested the department to adopt more stringent measures like instituting prosecution every day.
(iii) He requested DLO to follow up with the newly erected structures beside the BBQ Grounds as he worried that the BBQ Grounds would expand its businesses.
(iv) He suggested that the TD should increase the parking space for motorcycles in order to resolve the issue of motorcycle illegal parking.
(v) There were a lot of light decorations hanging on the trees outside the BBQ Grounds while there were plenty of inflammable substances inside the grounds. He queried the measures to be carried in the event of an outbreak of fire or even an explosion. He requested an elaboration from the Fire Services Department and the Electrical and
Mechanical Services Department accordingly.
(vi) He opined that the assessment made by EPD on a reasonable basis was not reasonable and he requested to know the time of the assessment.
25. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) As the BBQ Grounds had already committed breaches on more than one occasion, DLO could proceed with the re-entry of the land by virtue of the Cap. 126 Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies). At the same time, the Ordinance allowed the former owner of the title to redeem the land within six months of the date of registration of the memorial of instrument of re-entry or vesting notice. He wondered if DLO could find the title owner of the land in this way. If there were no one redeem of the land, the Government could then make new planning of the land lot for other purposes.
(ii) Whether possessing the ownership of the concessionary rights equivalent to being a stakeholder of the Tso. If the answer was positive, then the name list of the stakeholders could be obtained by working through the existing policy on the concessionary rights. The title of the Tso land could then be resolved accordingly.
26. Mr CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) He suggested both EPD and FEHD to amend the existing legislation in order to cope with the situation and issues.
(ii) He requested FEHD to provide information of penalties in the past and suggested to strengthen the prosecution and inspections in order to make the BBQ Grounds unable to continue the business.
(iii) Since DLO could not proceed to handle the issue of the land of the Tso owing to the lack of the complete list of the stakeholders. DLO should collaborate with the Planning Department (PlanD) to see whether it would be possible to recover the land for other development purposes.
(iv) He supported the setting up of an independent committee or group to deal with the issues related to BBQ Grounds.
27. Mr. WONG Bing-kuen supported the setting up of an independent group to follow up and requested the relevant departments to submit a progress report in every meeting.
28. Miss YIM Yik-huen, Bonnie, highlighted that Members had raised three methods to follow up the issue, including setting up of a working group, submission of the progress reports in the meetings and setting up of an inter-departmental team. K&TDO would follow up with regard to the decision of Members. She would like to stress that various departments had been following up with the issue through different platforms.
29. Miss HO Yin-king, Susanne gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) K&TDO did not have the list of those who had the concessionary right.
(ii) In the course of handling of the Tso/Tong issues in the New Territories, the applicant had to submit the latest list of stakeholders of the Tso/Tong and post a notice to inform all the stakeholders about the relevant applications.
30. Mr YIM Wai-hung, Vincent gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) In the event that there were public works projects going on in the aforesaid site, DLO would collaborate with the relevant development on the clearance works and proceed with the recovering of land.
(ii) In spite of the epidemic from the beginning of this year, DLO had already posted two notices requesting the BBQ Grounds to demolish the relevant unauthorised structures.
(iii) DLO would investigate and follow up with the structures raised by Mr. CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve, and PlanD would be responsible to take up the new regional planning issue mentioned by the Hon. LEUNG Yiu-chung.
31. Mr. YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy mentioned that FEHD would carry out the enforcement actions and the arrested party would need to appear before the court for hearing and punishment. FEHD would continue with this method in order to strengthen the deterrence.
32. Miss YIM Yik-huen, Bonnie pointed out that K&TDO had kept a close contact with PlanD regarding the issue of the BBQ Grounds. After the decision was made on the appropriate platform to follow up with the relevant issue, PlanD would be invited to join the meeting.
33. Since Mr WONG Tin-yan and Mr SIN Chung-kai were absent, the motion was moved by Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren.
34. The Chairman put the motion to the vote. The Committee endorsed the motion unanimously.
35. The Chairman supplemented that as the motion was endorsed to establish an inter-departmental team, he hoped that K&TDO could follow up with that and make the issue of the BBQ Grounds as a regular agenda item of the Committee and invited the various departments to join the meeting and provide progress updates.
(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat circulated the consolidated reply from DLO, FEHD, FSD, EMSD, PlanD and K&TDO to members on 8 June 2020. Please refer to CAC Circulation Paper 6/2020 for details.)
Request for Urgent Discussion on the Demolishment of Squatters in Kau Wa Keng (Proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve) (CAC Paper No. 39/D/2020)
36. Mr. CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve, introduced the Paper and he hoped that DLO would not demolish the residences of the people by force before the implementation of the measures settling the residents, and making them homeless in the process.
37. The Chairman supplemented as follows:
(i) As Members only raised the discussion item on 4 May 2020 which was a bit rush. However, as the item involved the issue of habitation of
the residents of that District, it was acceptable even though there was no reply from the relevant departments in view of the urgency of the issue.
(ii) Intimidation or threatening was a serious accusation and he hoped that the DLO could elaborate on that.
38. Ms. CHAN Suet Shan, Amy, Chief Land Executive/Task Force 2, Special Duties Task Force, Lands Administration Office, DLO gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Special Duties Task Force was handling the case of unlawful occupation of Government land near the Kau Wa Keng Land Lot. It was discovered that the land there was being illegally occupied after the patrolling and hence a notice was posted in late March, requiring the occupant to remove the unauthorised structure.
(ii) DLO clarified that they did not ask the villagers to ‘sleep in the streets’ in the course of their action. They also reminded their staff in particular to maintain due courtesy in the course of the discharge of their duties.
39. Mr. YEUNG Kim Ming, Manager/ Squatter Control (Squatter Control/Kowloon, Tsuen Wan & Kwai Tsing Office), Squatter Control Unit Lands Administration Office gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Squatter Control Office had not taken any large-scale operation in the past two months in Kau Wa Keng.
(ii) The posting of notices was the action specifically done by the Special Duties Task Force responsible for handling any buildings illegally occupying Government land. The Squatter Control Office had never posted any such kind of notices.
40. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) He requested the DLO to explain why they took action together with the private developers.
(ii) He queried what the definition of occupation was. He had contacted the staff of the DLO earlier and the definition of occupation at that time was referring to the wire nettings and flower beds. However, the action was taken to the housing on 27 April 2020.
(iii) Whether all the squatters at the Kau Wa Keng were registered and the DLO would demolish habitations later.
41. Mr. SZETO Man, Senior Land Executive /Task Force 8, Special Duties Task Force, Lands Administration Office, DLO gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) This action involved both Government land and private land.
(ii) The Government land included unlawful occupation of Government land. Pursuant to the Section 6(1) Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap. 28A, a notice was posted on 30 March, 2020 requiring the relevant parties to rectify the breach before the deadline. At the same time, the DLO carried out enforcement action regarding the unauthorised structures on the private land. Hence, both the DLO and the representative of the private land owners appeared in Kau Wa Keng at the same time. DLO pointed out the unlawful occupation and breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and required them to rectify the situation.
(iii) There were two prerequisites for an illegal action. Firstly, failure to rectify the breach before the given deadline; secondly, failure to rectify without any reasonable excuse or explanation. The targeted area of this action was enclosed by wire nettings, iron gates and partition boards. DLO could not ascertain whether there were any structures bearing the squatter registration number. Hence, the relevant notice was targeting on the unlawful occupation of land. DLO needed to enter the Premises in order to perform the assessment. It would be a reasonable explanation if the residents therein possessed the valid squatter registration number.
(iv) A site visit was done with the assistant of the Member Mr. CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve earlier with the aim to explaining the enforcement of
land control and to dispelling the worries.
42. Mr. CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve, queried again the definition of the unlawful objects, whether they refer to the Premises, the wire nettings or the space for storing miscellaneous things.
43. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) What the illegal structures were erected on Government land and private land and he asked if they refer to squatters or any other object.
(ii) With respect to the ‘Squatter Occupants Voluntary Registration Scheme’, would the residents of the squatters, which were not registered with the Scheme, be resettled after the squatters were demolished.
44. Mr LEUNG Kam-wai put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) The exact item that the DLO requested residents to demolish.
(ii) The number of families and residents involved in this action.
(iii) Whether the DLO had offered support to those who needed to make the move.
45. Mr. SZETO Man gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) This action focused on those unauthorised structures occupying Government land and private land.
(ii) Regarding the Government land, this action mainly focused on those Government lands being enclosed by wire nettings, iron gates, partition boards and miscellaneous things, DLO would carry out enforcement action regarding the unlawful situations.
(iii) Regarding the private land or even the squatters on Government land, the DLO needed to enter the relevant land to make an investigation before they could refer to the Squatter Control Unit to investigate their
legal status.
(iv) For the private land, without prior approval from the DLO, the title owner could not erect of their own accord structures on the agricultural land and a warning letter was issued earlier to the owner and the case was registered in the Land Registry. There might be further enforcement action.
(v) DLO had discovered there were different types of unauthorised structures but were unable to go inside to have an investigation as they were enclosed by the wire nettings and partition boards. The main objective of this action was to remove the unauthorised wire nettings and iron gates in order to obtain more information about the relevant structures.
46. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) Whether the DLO would take any action if they discovered some illegal substances were discovered after the residents demolished the wire nettings.
(ii) Most of the squatters on the private land were inhabited and whether the DLO would offer any kind of help to them; Whether these people would be offered the interim housing as temporary accommodation if they asked for help in the HD.
47. Mr LEUNG Kam-wai put forth opinions and enquiries as follow:
(i) Whether the DLO had offered support to those who needed to make the move.
(i) He requested the DLO to submit a report on the investigation, including the number of families being affected, after the meeting.
48. The Chairman requested the DLO to report on the status of the residents being affected.
49. Mr. SZETO Man gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The number of homes affected could not be ascertained for the time being, and this action was to carry out an investigation in the structure being enclosed and there would not be any instant impact on the residents inside the structure. Regarding whether the squatters had been registered legally and the arrangements in due course, these would be handled by the Squatter Control Unit.
(ii) Regarding the unauthorised structures on private land, the DLO had already issued a warning letter to the owner earlier, and registered the case with the Land Registry. In addition, another warning letter was issued in January this year, demanding the owner to rectify the breach in the private land.
50. The Chairman reminded the Government departments to strengthen their communication with the Members and did not have to wait until the Committee meetings to resolve problems.
Bazaars and Markets Working Group to be Established under the Community Affairs Committee in 2020 and 2021 (Proposed by Mr NG Kim-sing) (CAC Paper No. 28/D/2020)
51. The Chairman introduced the Paper.
52. The Committee unanimously endorsed the establishment of the above working group.
Election of Chairmen of Working Groups Established under the Community Affairs Committee in 2020 and 2021
53. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the Standing Orders of K&TDC for the provisions on election of Chairman of working group, including paragraph 2 under Guidelines on the Mechanism of Working Group, i.e. “each District Council Member should not concurrently hold the post of Chairman for more than three working groups funded by the District Council”, and paragraph 4(b), i.e. “District Council Members or Co-opted Members should nominate candidate at the meeting, and if the candidate is absent, he/she must give authorisation in writing for acceptance
of the nomination.”
54. The Chairman invited nominations for Chairman of the Working Group on Health and Occupational Safety in the Community (WGHOSC).
55. Mr LAU Chi-kit nominated Miss WONG Pit-man, which was seconded by Mr Leung Kam-wai. Miss WONG Pit-man accepted the nomination.
56. As there was only one candidate, the Chairman announced that Miss WONG Pit-man was elected the WGHOSC chairman.
57. The Chairman invited nominations for Chairman of the Inclusive Community Working Group (ICWG).
58. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve nominated Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen, which was seconded by Mr Leung Kwok-wah. Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen accepted the nomination.
59. As there was only one candidate, the Chairman announced that Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen was elected the ICWG chairman.
60. The Chairman invited nominations for Chairman of the Environmental Hygiene and Climate Change Working Group (EHCCWG).
61. Miss LEUNG Ching-shan nominated Miss WONG Pit-man, which was seconded by Mr Tam Ka-chun, Warren. Miss WONG Pit-man accepted the nomination.
62. As there was only one candidate, the Chairman announced that Miss WONG Pit-man was elected the EHCCWG chairman.
63. The Chairman invited nominations for Chairman of the Bazaars and Markets Working Group (BMWG).
64. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve nominated the Chairman, which was seconded by Mr HON Chun-yin. The Chairman accepted the nomination.
65. As there was only one candidate, the Chairman announced that himself was
elected the BMWG chairman.
Market Management Consultative Committees of Public Markets Managed by Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper No. 16/I/2020)
66. As the aforesaid agenda item was related to the election of the representative of Members, the Chairman suggested to reshuffle the order of the agenda items, moving agenda item no. 15 to follow immediately, and the Committee agreed unanimously.
67. Ms. MAR Suk Fong, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kwai Tsing), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, introduced the Paper, and invited the Committees to recommend suitable Members to join the Market Management Consultative Committees (MMCCs).
68. The Chairman invited nominations for representative of MMCCs of North Kwai Chung Market and Wo Yi Hop Road Cooked Food Market.
69. Mr LEUNG Kwok-wah nominated the Mr. LEUNG Wing-kuen, which was seconded by Mr CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman. Mr. LEUNG Wing-kuen accepted the nomination.
70. As there was only one candidate, the Chairman announced that Mr. LEUNG Wing-kuen was elected the representative of the MMCCs of North Kwai Chung Market and Wo Yi Hop Road Cooked Food Market.
Kwai Tsing District Council and the Occupational Safety and Health Council to Co-organise Occupational Safety and Health Promotional Campaign (Proposed by the K&TDC Secretariat) (CAC Paper No. 29/D/2020)
71. The Chairman introduced the Paper, and reminded Members that the deadline for the activity application was 31 May 2020. He urged the Chairman of the relevant working group to submit the activity application as soon as possible for review and approval.
72. Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren, raised that the issues of Injury Rehabilitation/Returning to Work were addressed in the Policy Address in the past years and the Occupational Safety and Health Council (Council). Therefore, he suggested to set aside part of the funding for the relevant topic.
73. Miss WONG Pit-man enquired whether it was possible to cover other topics outside the five main areas.
74. The Secretary replied that she would approach Occupation Safety and Health Council and over the details and reply the Chairman of the Working Group accordingly.
75. The Members unanimously endorsed the scheme should be followed up by Working Group on Health and Occupational Safety in the Community unanimously.
Public Education / Publicity Activities on Rehabilitation in 2020 and 2021 (Proposed by the K&TDC Secretariat) (CAC Paper No. 30/D/2020)
76. The Chairman introduced the Paper.
77. The members unanimously endorsed the scheme should be followed up by Inclusive Community Working Group.
78. The Chairman reminded the chairman of the working group that he could submit an application to the Labour and Welfare Bureau for extra funding of $50,000. In view of tight schedule, he could consider to make such application or not.
Funding Scheme For Women's Development in 2020 and 2021 (Proposed by the K&TDC Secretariat) (CAC Paper No. 31/D/2020) 79. The Chairman introduced the Paper.
80. The members unanimously endorsed the scheme should be followed up by Inclusive Community Working Group.
Request for Explanation by the Relevant Department(s) of the Problem of Illegal Sewage Discharge from Private Buildings (Proposed by Mr LAM Siu-fai and Ms LAU Kwai-mui) (CAC Paper No. 32, 32a, 32b, 32c, 32d/D/2020)
81. Ms LAU Kwai-mui introduced the paper.
82. Mr LAM Siu-fai supplemented that as follow:
(i) He praised the Cleansing Section of FEHD for the complete removal of the dirt accumulated in the past decades.
(ii) He hoped that the Owners’ Corporation (OC) or the building could face up to the seepage problem. The seepage of the sewage persisted since the Chinese New Year resulted in the stench odour. It was mind-boggling indeed while EPD replied that there was no bad odour and yet they requested OC to handle the sewage problem.
(iii) As the sewage had already trickled to the lift shaft causing damage, OC had realized the seriousness of the issue and noticed the problem with the drainage system of the building. Relevant people were engaged to cope with the problem. He hoped that the relevant Government departments could follow up and offer support and assistance.
83. Mr LEUNG Kwok-wah put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Apart from the On Shing Building, there was a similar situation in the Kwai Loong Building at 53 Tai Loong Street, which one of the pipes of the building was connected to the storm drain. He had lodged the complaint to EPD, FEHD and Buildings Department (BD) but the problem was still unresolved.
(ii) Regarding the On Shing Building, the sewage was wrongly connected to the storm drain leading to environmental pollution, which was violating the regulations of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. The tendering and the maintenance work were long processes. Hence he queried why EPD did not adopt the temporary measures like installing an additional manhole covers in order to avoid the breeding
of germs and insects.
84. Ms LAU Kwai-mui put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The incident happened last year and she had contacted various Government departments regarding the issue. As the pipe, which the sewage was trickling, was installed next to the gas pipe and she was worried if it would cause gas leaks. Hence, she had requested the Drainage Services Department (DSD) to have an investigation.
(ii) The seepage of sewage led to an extremely repellent odour and hence she was worried that there could be the issue of unauthorized building works. The Government departments kept on shunning responsibilities and hence the problem still existed which distressed the residents.
85. Mr. LEUNG Chi-shing pointed out that the private buildings in the Kwong Fai Circuit also had similar problems in March. The sewage was forced to discharge to the storm drain as a temporary measure because of the collapse of the manhole. The issue was resolved with the collaboration of the relevant Government departments, including K&TDO, FEHD, EPD and Police Force). Special acknowledge was given to EPD whose staff had spent the whole day to assist in dealing with the stench odour. OC should manage the building properly with appropriate measures like speeding up the tendering process to carry out maintenance work as soon as possible.
86. Mr. LAM Siu-fai suggested that apart from the current Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints of FEHD and BD, the Government should also establish an inter-departmental team in order to assist the private buildings to resolve the issue. For instance, DSD and FEHD could set up a joint office to provide joint support.
87. Mr. LEE Wai Kay, Eric, Senior Building Surveyor/D4, Buildings Department gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Government stressed that the maintenance of the private buildings fell under the responsibility of the owner, including carrying out of periodic checks and maintenance to ensure that the drainage system was working well.
(ii) The owner should seek the advice of qualified professionals or contractors in the event that they were doubtful about the condition of the drainage system of their residences or buildings. In addition, they should seek the assistance of the professionals to help with the inspection and maintenance if the drainage systems were not working properly.
(iii) BD had also compiled relevant guidelines to provide reference for those in need.
88. Mr. YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy, pointed out that the Cleansing Section staff would pay close attention to the streets around the On Shing Building, and would arrange the contractors to cleanse the streets concerned when the situation worsened and led to environmental hygiene issues.
89. Mr CHEUNG Kam-hing, Billy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) EPD carried out investigations at On Shing Building on 2, 12 and 30 March, 15, 24 and 29 April and 4 May and noticed some sewage in the drains due to urgent drainage maintenance works of the building on 9 March. OC had a meeting on 4 May and was actively dealing with the aforesaid issue. EPD would continue to follow up with the issue.
(ii) Regarding the issue with the private building in the Kwong Fai Circuit mentioned by Mr. LEUNG Chi-shing, EPD discovered that the damage of the drains led to subsequent blockages which caused the sewage backfill to the ground through the manhole. Hence, there was a need to discharge the sewage to the public storm drain in the streets. As the discharge of sewage to the public storm drain fell under the responsibilities of EPD, EPD issued both verbal and written warning to the private building reminding OC to abide by the Water Pollution Control Ordinance to prevent sewage from discharging to the storm drain. The building concerned had already complied with the Ordinance and the blockage in the drains had already been repaired. EPD would continue to monitor the situation.
90. Mr LEUNG Kwok-wah put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He could still smell the stench odour when he walked past the On Shing Building on 4 May. OC had established procedures to handle maintenance work. He enquired whether EPD could introduce some temporary measures to overwhelm the stench smell.
(ii) He praised FEHD for the cleaning up of the blocked drains in the Kwai Loong Building. Although the connection of sewer did not immediately affect the environmental hygiene adversely, it was important to face up to the problem triggered by the mis-connection.
91. Mr. LAM Siu-fai suggested the relevant departments should submit regular reports to the meeting on the issues related to illegal discharge by the private buildings.
92. Mr. LEUNG Chi-shing pointed out that there were lots of private buildings aged 30 years or older in the Kwai Tsing District, which focused on the repair and renovation of the external wall and structural issues but neglected the drainage and sewage systems. Hence, he suggested BD, K&TDO and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) should strengthen the publicity about this issue after the epidemic and call for major repairs and special inspection of the sewage system with timely maintenance.
93. The Chairman highlighted that it was not appropriate to have a deliberation at every meeting owing to the nature of the issue. He suggested a time frame of six months and would review the situation of the relevant building again before a further decision was made.
94. Mr. LAM Siu-fai suggested the K&TDO should take the lead to follow up and contact with OC regularly to provide timely support.
95. The Chairman said that he would discuss with the K&TDO about the measures to cope with the issue.
96. Mr WONG Bing-kuen put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The tenement buildings at the Texaco Road were fitted with canopies with filthy water dripping frequently. The grocery shops and noodle
shops beneath the canopies had to use refuse bins to collect the filthy water.
(ii) He had written to the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints of the FEHD and the BD for follow-up but it was replied that the canopy was too high to carry out any kind of investigation. It was inconceivable for the departments to ask the grocery shops and the noodle shops to erect a high platform for that purpose. Hence, he requested the relevant departments to follow up accordingly.
97. The Chairman responded that it was not reasonable to expect citizens to erect high platforms and requested to include this issue to the abovementioned report.
98. Mr. LEUNG Kwok-wah suggested to install temporary manhole cover at the On Shing Building in order to prevent the ‘wake effect’.
99. Mr CHEUNG Kam-hing, Billy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The discharge of sewage to the public storm drains would result in the water pollution of the Hong Kong harbor and therefore this was under control by the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. If faults were found with the pipes of the buildings, EPD would try to find out the source of the problem. If it was a mis-connection, the case would be referred to BD. If the issues related to the connection between the public storm drains and buildings, EPD would follow up accordingly.
(ii) To install temporary measures at public places like an addition of manhole covers should be handled by DSD.
100. Mr. YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy replied that he would liaise with Mr. WONG Bing-kuen after the meeting to follow up with the problems in Texaco Road owing to the limited information available.
101. Mr. LEE Wai Kay, Eric gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The responsibilities of the BD included the actions requiring owners to rectify the wrongly connected drains due to the lack of approvals.
(ii) Regarding the On Shing Building, there were drains connected from the retaining wall to the public space. The original purpose was used to discharge the rain water caught in the retaining wall in order to relieve the water pressure behind it. If the water pressure was not relieved properly, the stability of the retaining wall would be affected. Hence its principal function was not for the discharge of sewage but for relieving water pressure. Hence, it was not possible to resolve the issue of the sewage by blocking the water flow but had to focus on the source of the pollution. BD did not rule out the possibility that the sewage could be linked with the underground drainage system of the On Shing Building. OC was actively following up with the issue and had already engaged contractors to carry out the repairs. BD would closely monitor the situation.
102. Mr. LAM Siu-fai requested Government departments to assist repairs and maintenance at On Shing Building.
103. The Chairman requested the relevant departments to submit reports with the details of progress updates on the issue in the meetings of the CAC in the coming six months. He would discuss with the Assistant District Officer (Kwai Tsing) in this regard.
Report on Environmental Hygiene Services (From July 2019 to February 2020) (Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper Nos. 7,8,9,33/I/2020)
104. Mr. HUI Kei-cheung pointed out that in the period between July 2019 and February 2020, the number of prosecutions, confiscation of goods and warnings arising from the unauthorized extension of businesses around the Texaco Road became lower. The hygiene at the back alleys between the old buildings was horrible and the operation of the vegetable and fruit groceries affected the hygiene of the surrounding area adversely. However, there were only four prosecutions in the past eight months and he hoped FEHD could strengthen enforcement action accordingly.
105. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The figures recorded by the mosquito ovitraps in January and February
2020 in Tsing Yi North and Tsing Yi South were zero and he wondered if that was accurate or the accuracy was affected since it had been moved.
(ii) The rodent infestation in Tsing Yi North was getting more serious. He enquired about the frequency and locations of weekly visits.
106. Mr. LAU Chi-kit raised that FEHD only made verbal reminder instead of instituting a prosecution for the illegal acts of the shops at the Che Fong Street. The shops habitually dumped the fruit baskets and styrofoam boxes at the back alleys of the Che Fong Street. He opined that FEHD should not use public funds to help the shops clean up the mess created by themselves.
107. Ms LAU Kwai-mui put forth opinions as follows:
(i) Regarding the environmental hygiene nuisance caused by the hawkers and shops at Shek Yam Road, FEHD should require the relevant shops to clean up the paper cartons and styrofoam boxes and should not use public funds to help their cleaning. Moreover, there were cases that pedestrians were hurt by the falling styrofoam boxes in the past.
(ii) There were only 16 prosecutions for shops involved in the unauthorized extension of their businesses at the Shek Yam Road, and the number of goods confiscated and warnings issued were even zero. Notwithstanding that, she received complaints about the environmental hygiene and the obstruction of the road by goods of the businesses every day.
108. Mr LAM Siu-fai put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The unauthorized extension of businesses at Shek Yam Road had not shown any improvement in the past four years.
(ii) The shops were accustomed to placing the styrofoam boxes and goods outside their shops. However, if those boxes were on fire, they would result in billows of smoke which could be very hazardous. In addition, the vegetable groceries put large amounts of goods outside the bus stop at Shek Yam Road which could result in accidents. Hence, he
strongly requested more stringent enforcement actions from FEHD.
109. Mr TONG Ho-man put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He agreed with Mr. LAU Chi-kit that he received complaints about the environmental hygiene at the Che Fong Street every day. During the time of the epidemic, there was nobody there to handle the refuse left outside by the shops which worried the residents.
(ii) There was arson earlier in the vicinity of the community hall and FEHD should face up to the issue of the styrofoam boxes dumped around the neighbourhood of Kwai Fong Circuit.
(iii) The residents complained against the unfairness of the enforcement by the frontline staff of FEHD. Their staff only requested the shops to remove their goods temporarily for the photo-taking and the shops would just relapse afterwards. He asked how FEHD could ensure their frontline staff would enforce the law impartially.
110. Mr. CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman indicated that he has received complaints from the bus passengers at Hing Fong Road. The vegetable grocery there made the pavement slippery and the road surface stagnant with water. There would be splashes of water whenever buses drove past the road. There had been no improvement all along.
111. Miss WONG Pit-man put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Pigeons caused nuisance to the residents and the negative impact on hygiene. She suggested include the monitor of pigeons in the Environment and Hygiene Report.
(ii) Regarding the issue of the large styrofoam boxes and the paper cartons dumped by the shops and in the markets, FEHD could consider other means apart from prosecution, including recycling them on a large-scale basis.
112. The Chairman put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He suggested to include the data of Kwai Luen Estate in the report ‘Prosecutions outside housing estates managed by the Housing Department’ (HD) compiled by the Hawkers Section of the Kwai Tsing District.
(ii) Comparing the prosecution figures in January and February this year of shops for their unauthorized extension of businesses with those in the past, he enquired why the number of goods confiscated was zero.
(iii) He noticed that the area occupied by the styrofoam boxes was enlarging in the Kwai Fong Circuit area and those at the Hing Fong had invoked an explosion causing an adverse impact on the residents in the neighbourhood. Although FEHD had no direct responsibility for the incident, they should at least proceed to resolve the issue of unauthorized extension in the streets.
113. Miss LEUNG Ching-shan suggested that as the Kwai Shing Circuit included Kwai Shing West Estate and the High Prosperity Terrace Tower was surrounded by a hill slope, removing the weeds could reduce the breeding of mosquitoes and insects. Hence, she suggested to include the data in connection with weed removal.
114. Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) Regarding the question raised by Mr. HUI Kei-cheung, FEHD would strengthen the daily inspections and enforcement actions.
(ii) Regarding the situation of no goods being confiscated in January and February 2020, FEHD would take prosecution actions against the unauthorized extension of businesses either by the issuance of fixed penalties or by the enforcement actions with goods confiscated in the process. As there were more and more shops involved in this kind of problem in the Kwai Tsing District, FEHD would arrange more staff to cope with the situation.
(iii) Regarding the mosquito ovitrap index mentioned by TAM Ka-chun, Warren, the index would be released regularly in the website of FEHD and the information was the same as the Environment and Hygiene Report.
(iv) Regarding the mosquito disinfestation, the Pest Control Section of FEHD would carry out the anti-mosquito and anti-rodent operations in public places at least once a week. The relevant staff would bring along with them all the necessary mouse trapping devices, mosquito oil and larvicides for their routine work.
(v) Both Shek Yam Road and Che Fong Street were always visited by the residents of the Kwai Tsing District for fresh food produce and hence the number of shops increased tremendously. For the sake of maintaining a good environmental hygiene, FEHD would adjust the enforcement tactics and arrange sufficient staff for the enforcement actions and cleaning up the refuse.
(vi) There were quite a lot of scavengers and those engaged in the recycling industry came to pick up styrofoam boxes at the abovementioned site at the time. In the event that such styrofoam boxes created obstruction of the cleaning of the street, FEHD would issue a ‘Notice to Remove Obstruction’ requesting the shop owners to remove such goods before the designated date. Owing to the increasing number of shops selling fresh produces at the aforesaid site, the amounts of recyclable items had also been increasing, resulted in some degree of difficulty in handling such situation.
115. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) After FEHD had installed the CCTV at the refuse collection point at the Fisherman Village, he wondered if they had instituted any kind of prosecution regarding the large scale refuse dumping and the frequencies of the warning and prosecution.
(ii) He enquired about the disparity in the treatment of the styrofoam boxes outside the shops and the unlicensed hawkers. The prosecution of the former was at a much slower pace than the latter, he did not understand why the focus was on the grassroots unlicensed hawkers.
116. Mr. LAU Chi-kit pointed out that the shopping arcades would request the
shops handle their own refuse and he could not accept that FEHD would help the shops clean up the garbage left at the public places by deploying public funds. The frontline enforcement staff of FEHD should not only persuade the non-compliant shops but also request strictly that the shops should clean up the refuse dumped by the shops themselves.
117. Mr LAM Siu-fai put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Apart from the styrofoam boxes, the grocery shops would also pour crushed ice cubes onto the pavement leading to the environmental hygiene nuisances.
(ii) FEHD focused on certain spots at Wo Yi Hop Road, like The Apex but at the expense of Shek Yam Road, with the excuse that the street cleaning vehicles could not drive in. Also, FEHD did not endeavor to clean up the stagnant water in the street.
(iii) He requested FEHD to set up a banner next to the refuse box at Wo Yi Hop Road and strengthen the communication with the Owners’ Corporation of the building, reminding the residents that the collection and the handling of domestic refuse should fall under the responsibility of the building.
(iv) He opined that it was inappropriate for FEHD to use public funds to do the cleaning for the shops, indirectly encouraging their non-compliant acts in the process.
118. Mr TONG Ho-man put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) There were more people at the Shing Fong Street but the shops were accustomed to putting their styrofoam boxes in the pavement occupying half of the pavement resulted in the obstruction affecting the pedestrians.
(ii) The residents always complained about the unfairness of the enforcement of the frontline staff of FEHD in handling with the shops’ unauthorized extension of their businesses. They normally took a photograph of the site without follow-up actions and the
shops would relapse afterwards. After complaints were made to the District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kwai Tsing District) earlier, there was still no improvement in the situation even though it was promised the staff would be disciplined. He hoped that FEHD could actively follow up with the enforcement of the frontline staff.
119. Mr HUI Kei-cheung put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He requested FEHD to pay close attention to the hygiene black spot at the Texaco Road.
(ii) He requested a report submitted with photos regarding the hygiene conditions of the street to the Committee.
120. Miss WONG Pit-man suggested to include the figures in the monitoring of pigeons with statistical analysis.
121. Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) FEHD would closely monitor the issue at the aforesaid site and would carry out enforcement where appropriate.
(ii) FEHD would strengthen the training and supervision of the frontline staff.
(iii) After the installation of webcam at the Tsing Yi Fishermen Village refuse collection centre, FEHD instituted prosecution to the people who dumped refuse illegally. He could provide information to Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren after the meeting.
(iv) Upon the receipt of the complaints, FEHD would arrange staff as soon as possible to follow up with the shops’ extension of their businesses or unlicensed hawkers.
(v) FEHD would adjust the enforcement tactics regarding the hygiene black spots with respect to the comments of the Members.
(vi) Responding to Mr. HUI Kei-cheung, FEHD also used the pressure cleaners for cleaning the back alleys of Yen Ya Building and Wang Wah Building, and those apparatus could also clean the pavement where feasible and hence it was not confined to certain parts only.
(vii) Responding to Mr. LAM Siu-fai regarding the situation at Shek Yam Road, FEHD had already invested huge amounts of resources at Shek Yam Road and Kwai Fong Circuit. In addition, there was always illegal parking at Shek Yam Road in the morning and evening and hence the contractors’ vehicles could not park there and use the pressure cleaners for cleaning purposes.
(viii) Responding to Miss LEUNG Ching-shan regarding the issue of the removal of weeds, FEHD focused on the anti-mosquito and anti-insect operations in all the public places and would refer to other departments for follow up if the issues concerned fell under other departments’ jurisdiction.
(ix) Regarding the enquiry made by Miss WONG Pit-man, if there were findings that public places were polluted because of the feeding of the pigeons by the public, FEHD could make a prosecution against the persons involved. Regarding the handling of the pigeon issue, it should fall under the responsibility of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD).
122. Regarding the issue with the pigeons, the Chairman would follow up with the AFCD after the meeting.
123. Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren, enquired whether it was possible to invite the AFCD to be the standing member of CAC.
124. The Chairman would discuss with AFCD and follow up accordingly.
Progress Report on Kwai Tsing District Minor Works (Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper Nos. 10,11,12,34/I/2020)
Kwai Tsing District 2020 Year-end Clean-up
(Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper No. 13/I/2020)
Achievements of the Kwai Tsing District 2020 Year-end Clean-up (Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper No. 35/I/2020)
Anti-rodent Campaign 2020 (First Phase) (Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper No. 14/I/2020)
Anti-mosquito Campaign 2020 (First and Second Phase) (Proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) (CAC Paper No. 15,36/I/2020)
Chemical Waste Treatment Centre Monitoring Report (From May 2019 to January 2020) (Proposed by the Environmental Protection Department) (CAC Paper Nos. 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,37,38/I/2020)
2019-2020 Annual Activity Progress Report of Community Affairs Committee (Proposed by the K&TDC Secretariat) (CAC Paper No. 24/R/2020)
125. The Chairman suggested to combine discussion of agenda items no 10 to 17 and each of the Members would have one minute for presentation.
126. Miss KWOK Fu-yung reflected the feedback from the residents of north-east Kwai Chung. There were a lot of parks and gardens with flower beds located next to the bus stops. Recently, there was also the problem with midges troubling the residents in the neighbourhood.
127. Miss LO Yuen-ting put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Regarding the mosquito infestation, the Cheung Hang Estate was built along the hill slopes and hence the residents of those buildings along the hillside were deeply distressed, with a lot of children’s eyes and faces being bitten by the mosquitoes leading to swelling. She had
reflected the issue to FEHD earlier and there was no improvement so far.
(ii) The construction site at Liu To Road had worsened the rodent infestation at the Cheung Hang Estate. She requested FEHD to negotiate with the management company of the Estate and the company responsible for the construction site on the measures dealing with the issue.
(iii) There was no dump truck in the Cheung Hang Estate to handle large scale recycling of deserted furniture. However, there were three car parking space for the dump trucks in the Estate and hoped that FEHD could make appropriate arrangements.
128. Mr. WONG Yun-tat, Ivan suggested that weeds had grown luxuriantly owing to the recent warm weather at the huge slope at Yan Kwai House in the Kwai Chung Estate leading to a serious mosquito problem. The residents nearby reflected that the frequencies of FEHD in the cleaning of the weeds had lessened and urged FEHD to follow up.
129. Mr. CHOW Wai-hung, Rayman commented and enquired about the comment of Mr. WONG Yun-tat, Ivan as follows:
(i) DSD had replaced the underground pipelines several years ago and hence some temporary pipelines were installed. However, there were a lot of miscellaneous things piling up beside them. Although the outsourcing cleaners endeavored to clean up as much as possible, the rodent infestation still existed in various positions of the pipelines that were difficult to reach. He hoped that FEHD could strengthen the cleansing of those areas.
(ii) HD and FEHD should strengthen their liaison and cope with the rodent infestation together.
130. Mr LEUNG Kam-wai put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The mosquitoes and midges’ problem in Kwai Chung Estate had become serious at the time and hoped that HD could strengthen the
anti-mosquito operation.
(ii) Regarding the rodent disinfestation, he noticed that FEHD had already installed the CCTV but the effectiveness was low. He suggested FEHD to try with the latest technology and measures to cope with the rat infestation.
131. Mr SIN Ho-fai put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He enquired about the standard that FEHD formulated the frequencies and the sites of the mosquito disinfestation as the frequency of such campaigns in different sites varied. It was more frequent in some estates, but it took more than one month for the Broadview Garden to have the second anti-mosquito operation done. As the Broadview Garden was badly troubled by the mosquitos and the midges, he requested FEHD to cope with the problems.
(ii) The success of the anti-mosquito work could not solely rely on FEHD. There were the Tsing Yi Park and schools nearby Wai Ying and hence he suggested the Chairman to invite the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to the meeting.
132. Mr TAM Ka-chun, Warren put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The Tsing Yi District had always been distressed by the mosquito infestation, with places like the Tsing Yi Park, the Nga Ying Chau Garden and the Tsing Yi Northeast Park were more serious. He queried why the anti-mosquitoes work was not done in the Tsing Yi Northeast Park.
(ii) He agreed with the suggestion of Mr. SIN Ho-fai to invite LCSD to collaborate on the anti-mosquito work. FEHD placed the ovitraps in the parks but then the colleagues of LCSD might not know how to handle them.
(iii) He opined that the problem with the rats and mosquitoes were very serious and hoped to invite the representatives from AFCD to join the meeting and elaborate on their work, particularly at the Cheung On
Estate, Cheung Fat Estate and Tsing Yi North areas.
133. Mr CHEUNG Kwan-kiu, Steve put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Regarding the issue with mosquitoes, the Kau Wa Keng San Tsuen, Kau Wa Keng Village, Cheung Hang Village and Pumping Station Upper Village were in the rural areas and hence it was susceptible to the plague of mosquitoes. He hoped that FEHD could strengthen the measures to deal with the problem.
(ii) Regarding the 2019-2020 Annual Activity Progress Report of Community Affairs Committee, he enquired about the arrangement of the funds if the activities were cancelled, like the Kwai Tsing District Green Stall at the Hong Kong Flower Show.
134. Mr LAU Chi-kit put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He agreed with Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren that there were a lot of complaints lodged by the residents about the mosquitos and midges’ problem at the Tsing Yi Northeast Park and even the neighboring Ching Tai Court. He suggested FEHD to strengthen the communication with the Cheung Fat Estate, Owners’ Corporation of Ching Tai Court and LCSD to enhance the anti-mosquito operation.
(ii) In spite of the regular cleansing of the Cheung Fat Market, there was still rodent infestation. He requested to have more effective measures to cope with the hazard.
135. Mr HON Chun-yin put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Regarding the mosquitoes and rodent infestation, a lot of ‘untouchable’ areas, including the construction sites and the schools, were deeply distressed by mosquitoes. Although FEHD had already strengthened the inspections of the construction sites, the problem in 2020 had become more serious and he hoped that special attention could be given to the relevant sites.
(ii) Chemical Waste Treatment Centre Monitoring Report mentioned the
emissions of dioxin and the residents were very concerned. Although the level of discharge was still regarded as acceptable but there was a need to clarify the volume and types of wastes treated by the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre in order to dispel the worries of the residents.
136. Ms LAU Kwai-mui pointed out that there was always stagnant water around the construction site at the Sing Shing Building at Wo Yi Hop Road resulting in the serious mosquito and rodent infestation. He hoped that FEHD could follow up with the problem.
137. Mr LAM Siu-fai hoped that FEHD could clean up the outdoor refuse collection centres along the Shek Pai Street and at the back of the Fook Tak Temple, the shelter of the refuse collection centre at Shek Yam Road and the leaves accumulated at the manhole covers along the Shek Pai Street in order to prevent a mosquito plague.
138. Mr LEUNG Wing-kuen put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The residents living in buildings near the market and the hillside (particularly those living in lower floors) were greatly distressed by the rodent infestation as the rats would creep into the house through the canopies. He understood that the hygiene condition at the hillside near the On Yam Estate should fall under HD, and he had also reflected the issue to HD and the cleaning company. However, their approach was not as professional as FEHD and not effective either. Hence, he hoped that FEHD could collaborate with HD and the cleaning company to make joint efforts to cope with the situation.
(ii) He hoped that FEHD could strengthen the anti-mosquito work in the squatter area and the hill slopes.
139. Mr LEUNG Kwok-wah put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) Regarding the problems caused by mosquitoes and rats, the District Office did not arrange a regular cleaning the hill roads in the Shek Lei (I) Estate, FEHD would clean the pipes only when the fallen leaves blocked the pipes. Hence, he hoped FEHD to make it a routine to clean the pipelines of the fallen leaves.
(ii) In the pit near the rain shelter in the Shek Lei and the Northeast Kwai Chung, the fallen leaves blocked the pipelines leading to the mosquito problems.
(iii) The renovation of the markets at the Shek Lei Estate Phase I caused the rat infestation extending to the Shek Lei (I) Estate. He hoped that the anti-rodent team of FEHD and the management companies of the housing estate and the Shek Lei Market could discuss and work out the measures together.
140. Mr WONG Bing-kuen put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) He enquired why there was a time span of more than three months between the First and the Second Phases of the Anti-Rodent Campaign 2020 in the Kwai Tsing District.
(ii) The anti-mosquito work was insufficient in Tai Wo Hou, there was only once on 20 May according to the Paper.
(iii) FEHD had a structured plan for the anti-rodent and anti-mosquito work in phases one and two, but HD did not elaborate any. The problems with rats and mosquitoes in the housing estates were more serious.
141. Mr TONG Ho-man put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) The rat problem at the Kwai Fong Circuit was more serious and there were complaints from the residents frequently even for those living in the mid-level floors and the elderly homes also suffered from the rodent infestation.
(ii) The back alley was strewn with litter and styrofoam boxes, and there was no cover for the manhole and people threw litter everywhere leading to serious rodent infestation.
142. Mr HUI Kei-cheung put forth opinions as follows:
(i) Apart from the hygiene blackspot at Tai Ha Street and Texaco Road, he
hoped that the FEHD could pay more attention the hygiene condition of the Shek Tau Street.
(ii) He hoped that the FEHD could pay attention to the slope outside the Texaco Road, the mosquito infestation was very serious particularly in the summer months.
(iii) There were mosquito and rodent infestation in the housing estates. He agreed that HD should collaborate with FEHD and report on their joint efforts together.
143. Miss WONG Pit-man put forth opinions and enquiries as follows:
(i) She agreed that LCSD should be present at the CAC meeting, and submit statistics to report on their work in the community environment.
(ii) After reflecting the problem with the Tsing Yi Estate to FEHD, there was a quick follow up and improvements in the public areas. However, the mosquito infestation could also originate from the three private housing estates in the Tsing Yi Estate, hence discounting the success of their anti-mosquito work. She understood FEHD could only encourage and advise the management companies and the OC of the private housing estates but wondered if there were any other means to strengthen cooperation with them. She enquired the measures that would be made if the management companies and the OC failed to heed their advices.
144. Mr YIM Kwok-ching, Timothy gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The sites and details of the anti-mosquito and anti-rodent operations were formulated according to the results of the daily patrolling and relevant complaints.
(ii) The pest control contractors of FEHD would regularly carry out the anti-mosquito and anti-rodent operations apart from the working plan of anti-mosquito and anti-rodent work. In 2020, FEHD also strengthened the staff force to enhance the work of pest control.
(iii) FEHD was mainly responsible for the pest control of the public areas and would provide advice and technical support on pest control to the public housing estates and private places. In addition, FEHD would invite different departments including HD and their contractors to have meetings every month in order to follow up with the problems identified from the daily patrolling. Those meetings would provide a platform so that FEHD could provide technical support and guidance to the participants to handle the mosquito and rodent infestations.
145. Ms MAK Siu-ling, Senior Property Service Manager/Kwai Chung, gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) HD always placed a high importance on the environmental hygiene in the public housing estates. The summer would come soon, and the staff of HD had already instructed the frontline staff of the housing estates to strengthen the anti-mosquito and anti-rodent work, including cleaning up the flower beds, blocking of the rat holes, placing rat poisons and periodically cleaning up the stagnant water, etc.
(ii) HD had been closely connecting with FEHD and would host regular meetings and make site visits of the housing estates together with interflow of opinions and comments. Also FEHD was invited to provide professional expertise and technical guidance regarding the anti-rodent and anti-mosquito works. Following the professional advice of FEHD, HD had already added new mosquito traps with outstanding results. At the same time, HD would also team up with the owners of the property that was demolished to carry out the joint cleaning efforts.
(iii) HD would also strengthen both publicity and public education, apart from partnering with NGOs to host activities, they would also publicise to the resident information about environmental hygiene and anti-rodent campaigns by distributing pamphlets and displaying banners and posters, through the housing estates newsletters, etc.
146. The Secretary responded that the funds for the activities of the District Council was not used for other purposes.
147. Owing to the concern of Members, the Chairman decided to move the Environment and Hygiene Report to the next meeting as a discussion item, and would invite representatives from LCSD and DLO to join the meeting. In addition, he suggested the Members to highlight the hygiene black spots of various areas next meeting.
148. Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren, suggested to leave CAC Paper No. 24/R/2020 till next meeting in order to have a more in-depth discussion. He wanted to know more details of the activities and the use of the funds.
149. The Chairman agreed with the suggestion of Mr. TAM Ka-chun, Warren, and would spare sufficient time for discussion.
Any Other Business
150. No other business was raised.
Date of Next Meeting
151. The next meeting was scheduled to be held on 9 June 2020 (Tuesday).
Kwai Tsing District Council Secretariat June 2020